Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vivitar is back
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d2b614348aa7ac8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 6:50 am
From: Rich

"Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in
news:_vqol.13121$Db2.6735@edtnps83:

>
> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c8ec09b-125d-44b0-9d9e-7e48a8ca3879@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com.
> .. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>
> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
> • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR
> cameras.
>
> I've owned two vivitar lenses in my life. Both fell apart. I'll
> never buy another.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>

I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come
across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent,
and Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm f3.5) aren't bad at all and at the time they
were made cost almost as much as Canon and Nikon. But you are right, their
construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that
great.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 6:51 am
From: Rich

measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in news:Q0zol.17567$yr3.8213
@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:25:13 -0800, RichA wrote:
>
>> http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>>
>> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
>> • Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
>> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
>> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses – all usable with both film and digital SLR
>> cameras.
>
> Vivitar is really not back. Some new business just got the rights to the
> Vivitar name but the company is long gone.

But considering Vivitar lenses even in their heyday were made by up to 10
different companies, they are back for all intents and purposes.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:11 am
From: Bruce

Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come
>across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent,
>and Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm f3.5) aren't bad at all and at the time they
>were made cost almost as much as Canon and Nikon. But you are right, their
>construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that
>great.

It is impossible to generalise about Vivitar. While some of their early
lenses, including the Kiron-made 70-210mm f3.5 Series 1 and its
subsequent Komine-made f/2.8-4/0 version, were quite good, the brand
later became just a name applied to some appalling Cosina-made junk.

Of the later lenses, only the Cosina-made 100mm f/3.5 Macro deserves any
credit. It even appeared branded as a Canon lens in order to offer a
low-cost alternative to Canon's own 100mm offering.

The latest "Vivitar" range once again appears to be just a badge, this
time applied to some appalling cheap junk from Sakar. The Samyang
(Korea) made 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical (also available as a "Polar") is
laughable; the image quality is atrocious unless stopped down to f/8.
Wide open, the bokeh is appalling.

Who on earth buys an f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8 to
get barely acceptable results? A cheapskate, presumably.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 9:10 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aPGdnYKa6dSDlDnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in
> news:_vqol.13121$Db2.6735@edtnps83:
>
>>
>> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c8ec09b-125d-44b0-9d9e-7e48a8ca3879@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com.
>> .. http://www.dcviews.com/press/vivitar-v8025.htm
>>
>> Also new to the Vivitar family are Sakar's:
>> . Vivitar Series 1 Lenses for Digital SLRs (SRP $149.95 to $399.9),
>> including an 85mm F1.4A spherical lens for portraits plus 500mm and
>> 800mm f/8.0 mirror lenses - all usable with both film and digital SLR
>> cameras.
>>
>> I've owned two vivitar lenses in my life. Both fell apart. I'll
>> never buy another.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
>
> I've owned a slew of lenses of various makes, and sometimes, you come
> across good ones from the oddest places. Soligor's 28mm f2.8 is decent,
> and Vivitar Series 1 (70-210mm f3.5) aren't bad at all and at the time
> they
> were made cost almost as much as Canon and Nikon. But you are right,
> their
> construction while in some cases seeming to be robust was not all that
> great.

In my younger days, I was more likely to gamble if I thought I could save a
few bucks. After being bitten by vivitar (and a few other low-buck brands,
I've settled on name brand lenses where quality costs a bit more, but is
more certain. Having said that, I still kind of like Tamron; a 2X TC from
that company is always close by when I'm shooting.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did the Canon boat sink?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0dfb9b4ed431024?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 6:55 am
From: Rich

"bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote in
news:49a3e981$0$5101$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:

>
> "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
> news:yv-dnVBp3-SnUT7UnZ2dnUVZ8ooLAAAA@novis.pt...
>> SMS wrote:
>>> bowser wrote:
>>>> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra
>>>> batteries? Still no stock I can find.
>>>
>>> Demand is extremely high. Amazon says 2-4 weeks, but I've seen that
>>> turn into months sometimes. OTOH, if you want a Nikon D700 you can
>>> get one right away.
>>
>> It's called "logistics" ;-)
>>
>> You'll be much better of with the D700 anyway...
>
> If I bought a D700 body, I wouldn't be able to produce a single
> exposure. The only gear I have that would work with it would be the CF
> cards. I'm not buying any camera that can't use my 24-105.
>
>

Canon legacy systems work well for the company. Anyone considering dumping
out of Nikon ends up taking a bath because of the poor value-holding of
most Canon lenses. A great incentive to stick with them.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:22 am
From: John McWilliams

Rich wrote:
>
> Canon legacy systems work well for the company. Anyone considering dumping
> out of Nikon ends up taking a bath because of the poor value-holding of
> most Canon lenses. A great incentive to stick with them.

You wanna try a re-write?

Sheesh. Canon-basher can't even get his antecedents right.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK & Canon SD1000
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d8e9cc9534d067dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:06 am
From: Pioneer42

bugbear wrote:
> jimbok wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:25:17 -0600, Pioneer42
>> <pioneer42@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Concerning the RAW data produced by CHDK, I haven't been able to find
>>> a suitable program to edit them with.
>>
>> Most current versions of CHDK give you the option to save the RAW
>> files in DNG format (Adobe Digital Negative). DNG can be opened in
>> numerous programs including Irfanview and XnView.
>>
>> Another conversion option is to use a program such as "DNG4ps2" which
>> will convert Powershot RAW files to DNG.
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/dng4ps2/
>>
>> A third option is to use a program such as RawTherapee, which can work
>> directly with Powershot RAW files.
>>
>> http://www.rawtherapee.com/
>>
>> All are freeware
>>
>
> Add: dcraw, ufraw
>
> BugBear

Thanks, I can now use the GIMP with ufraw to open DNG files saved by
CHDK. I can also now open DNG files with Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2,
but I have to convert them to an uncompressed DNG first.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Critiques
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/523ae9d180cbf377?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:29 am
From: tony cooper

On 24 Feb 2009 12:23:24 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>> I tried "critique" and came up with
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahkap83/2999897427/
>
>That's very odd because it's a photograph without the word "critique"
>in its title, tags, description, or comments. In fact there are very
>few words of any kind associated with it. What's more it has only been
>looked at a dozen times in the months since it was put on display
>(which of course may change now you've advertised it :-).
>
>It's hard to imagine what kind of search would ever find that image,
>let alone put it near the top in a large trawl. Perhaps what you need
>help with is how to do computer searches?

Not particularly odd. I used "Flickr +critique" from the Google page,
found several sub-groups, picked one, and scanned a few photos in that
group.

Computer searches in general are not a problem for me, but I'm totally
unfamiliar with how Flickr is set up. I wasn't aware that key words
are used with photos in categories. I didn't see anything that
explains their hierarchy.

I can work it out, though. I thought that some nice person in this
group would offer some shortcuts or helpful pointers; I was just
looking for a jump start in an unfamiliar area. That's what I would
do if I was on the other end.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:26 am
From: John McWilliams

Savageduck wrote:

> Outside of some of the humorous interchanges, argumentative egos seem to
> be the norm here.

No, that's absolutely untrue! Liar, liar, pants on fire!!

--
john mcwilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 9:19 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:34KdnVqYjcMlfj7UnZ2dnUVZ_oULAAAA@supernews.com...
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I really don't follow that. A critique doesn't put anything into an
>> image. It points out what is good and what is bad about an image.
>
> I probably should have stated it as "The author of the critique interjects
> how they would take the photograph, even when not knowing the
> circumstances
> or environment the photographer was in." In other words, they are
> assuming.
>
>>> Constructive critique is
>>> always welcome; it's when it is turned into a pissing contest that
>>> one questions the value and the motives of the person making the
>>> critique.
>>
>> Critiques have be in a neutral environment. They don't work Usenet
>> because the participants build up an opinion about the person from
>> routine posting exchanges, and that builds a bias into the critique.
>
> BINGO! I knew you would get it.
>

Perhaps what is needed is a neutral way to post pics for critiquing?

I think blogspot could be used. Someone would just have to set up an
account and publish the email address for posting. All pics posted would
then appear under the same "user" and comments could be left. Very little
upkeep to such a system too.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just bought my first digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/290a11d3298db65c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:39 am
From: "WW"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:HNidnSN_3o-p6j3UnZ2dnUVZ_h-WnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>>> Seriously, this is one reason to try the camera in the shop (and just
>>>> outside) /before/ you buy. Some cameras are much better than others
>>>> in sunlight. Take the camera back to the shop, and try different
>>>> models. David
>>>>
>>> Trying a camera before you buy it, outside the shop, may be
>>> interpreted as shoplifting!
>>
>> I assume a basic level of common-sense, and actually /asking/ the shop
>> assistant for permission before trying the camera outside! <G> I've
>> never had such a request refused.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
> You must deal with more trusting people than I do, or maybe I just look
> dishonest...
> Grin.

Just leave your driver license with them. WW

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:57 am
From: Jürgen Exner

Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>J?rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> the donny <parkstreetbooboo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Hi. I just purchased a Canon A2000IS. I really like it except for
>>>one thing. In sunlight, it is very hard to see the screen on the
>>>back. There is no viewfinder. I framed a shot today, and had
>>>difficulty seeing, and the shot came out on an angle.
>
>> Welcome to the world of modern P&S.
>
>>>Is there a
>>>simple solution to the glare? Sunglasses?
>
>> Simple? Yes. Cheap? No.
>> Get a camera with an optical viewfinder. Yes, they are harder and harder
>> to find.
>
>Cheap: wear a black shirt. If not enough use a hat to shade the camera
>screen. If not enough throw a black cloth over both camera and
>head. That always works.

Unless you are wearing polarized sunglasses to reduce glare. Then
there's no hope of viewing an LCD screen.

jue

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rocky Camera UK now changed
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6a1a962c230c73c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:54 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

Now trading on ebay as ferndowncameras. Avoid.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tiny old pancake lens in modern DSLR camera - What a contrast!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a3efd7a0d81d3bfa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 7:56 am
From: Bruce

Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>An Olympus E-420 coupled to the 25mm is very pocketable.

But not very desirable. :-(

>Other pancakes (this applies only to Olympus/Canon as they
>are the only two DSLRs that can readily adapt almost any lens) include
>the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and the Minolta 45mm f2.0. It would have
>been nice if Nikon's D40/60 were compatible with the 45mm you show.

You can fit neither the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 nor the Minolta 45mm
f/2.0 to a Canon (D)SLR because the lens flange to film/sensor plane
dimensions for the Konica and Minolta systems are too great.

You may be able to find adapters, but they will either include an
additional lens element that destroys any pretence to high image
quality, or disallow focusing at anything other than close distances.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: new canon battery for 5D mark II
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/703cc2b417ac75a4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:10 am
From: "john"

I have an EOS 20D and have always wanted a full frame DSLR.
I'm somewhat disappointed in the 5D mark II's new battery, LP-E6.

According to canon
(http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2046):

"Each LP-E6 battery pack has a microchip with a unique, 8-character serial
number. You don't see this number on the outside of the battery, but it's
embedded in the battery's information source. When the battery pack is
installed in the camera, you can register it using a menu command. This adds
it to an in-camera list of LP-E6 battery packs, with serial number memorized
and displayed."

This seems to imply it would be harder if not impossible for 3rd party
battery makers to make a compatible battery. The supposed added benefits of
this new battery doesn't sound all that exciting to me. I already have a
"collection" of BP511 (compatible with EOS 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, ...).
I'm all for innovation, but why can't the camera be designed to accept both
types of battery?

Let's call a spade a spade. This battery's main purpose is to lock out 3rd
party batteries.

How come FTC doesn't step in and force the company to make their system more
open like they did to a certain computer operating system? Or stop them from
unfairly bundling their own brand of battery with the camera body?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:29 am
From: John McWilliams

john wrote:
> I have an EOS 20D and have always wanted a full frame DSLR.
> I'm somewhat disappointed in the 5D mark II's new battery, LP-E6.
>
> According to canon
> (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2046):
>
> "Each LP-E6 battery pack has a microchip with a unique, 8-character
> serial number. You don't see this number on the outside of the battery,
> but it's embedded in the battery's information source. When the battery
> pack is installed in the camera, you can register it using a menu
> command. This adds it to an in-camera list of LP-E6 battery packs, with
> serial number memorized and displayed."
>
> This seems to imply it would be harder if not impossible for 3rd party
> battery makers to make a compatible battery. The supposed added benefits
> of this new battery doesn't sound all that exciting to me. I already
> have a "collection" of BP511 (compatible with EOS 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D,
> 50D, ...). I'm all for innovation, but why can't the camera be designed
> to accept both types of battery?
>
> Let's call a spade a spade. This battery's main purpose is to lock out
> 3rd party batteries.
>
> How come FTC doesn't step in and force the company to make their system
> more open like they did to a certain computer operating system? Or stop
> them from unfairly bundling their own brand of battery with the camera
> body?

Apples n oranges.

You could get a 5D as it takes the same batteries as your current
battery of batteries.

--
John McWilliams

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 11:17 am
From: "Pete D"

"john" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:002faeac$0$19216$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>I have an EOS 20D and have always wanted a full frame DSLR.
> I'm somewhat disappointed in the 5D mark II's new battery, LP-E6.
>
> According to canon
> (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2046):
>
> "Each LP-E6 battery pack has a microchip with a unique, 8-character serial
> number. You don't see this number on the outside of the battery, but it's
> embedded in the battery's information source. When the battery pack is
> installed in the camera, you can register it using a menu command. This
> adds it to an in-camera list of LP-E6 battery packs, with serial number
> memorized and displayed."
>
> This seems to imply it would be harder if not impossible for 3rd party
> battery makers to make a compatible battery. The supposed added benefits
> of this new battery doesn't sound all that exciting to me. I already have
> a "collection" of BP511 (compatible with EOS 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D,
> ...). I'm all for innovation, but why can't the camera be designed to
> accept both types of battery?
>
> Let's call a spade a spade. This battery's main purpose is to lock out 3rd
> party batteries.
>
> How come FTC doesn't step in and force the company to make their system
> more open like they did to a certain computer operating system? Or stop
> them from unfairly bundling their own brand of battery with the camera
> body?

Lets call a spade a spade, next you will be wanting all lens mounts to be
the same and all flash mounts to be compatible, it will not happen.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon Capture NX2.10 $180 US No Way!! Free!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bca540d539eacbc2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:17 am
From: John McWilliams

Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
> In message news:gnvaf4$l8k$1@news.motzarella.org, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>
>> Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few years?
>
> What proof do you have that anyone uses their real name?

There's only one of which I am 100% positive. Others are in the 99%
probability, down to zero in the case of yourself.

The point isn't so much real name, but one consistent handle throughout
the years. Although if folks had to post with their real name, there'd
be fewer cowards mucking up the works. This latter is not aimed at you.
I don't see much mucking, and I doubt you're a coward. Do you use other
nyms?

--
John McWilliams

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 9:21 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-24 08:17:12 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:

> Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
>> In message news:gnvaf4$l8k$1@news.motzarella.org, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few years?
>>
>> What proof do you have that anyone uses their real name?
>
> There's only one of which I am 100% positive. Others are in the 99%
> probability, down to zero in the case of yourself.
>
> The point isn't so much real name, but one consistent handle throughout
> the years. Although if folks had to post with their real name, there'd
> be fewer cowards mucking up the works. This latter is not aimed at you.
> I don't see much mucking, and I doubt you're a coward. Do you use other
> nyms?

I use my real name, not that it clearly identifies me. Do you know how
many Christopher J Campbells there are in the world? Heck, there was
even another flight instructor in the local area who had the same name
as me. There are Chris Campbells in the NFL, on wanted posters, running
photography studios, and everything else. But I agree with you on the
use of sock puppets and other stuff. Very annoying.

Frankly, though, I want Robin Hood to become an outstanding
photographer. I also want to see his face when his images are stolen.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 9:35 am
From: "David J Taylor"

C J Campbell wrote:
[]
> I use my real name, not that it clearly identifies me. Do you know how
> many Christopher J Campbells there are in the world? Heck, there was
> even another flight instructor in the local area who had the same name
> as me. There are Chris Campbells in the NFL, on wanted posters,
> running photography studios, and everything else.
[]

I bet there are more "David Taylor"s, Chris (or do you prefer
Christopher).
A magician of the same name as mine lives in the next street.

David

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 10:36 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-02-24 09:35:45 -0800, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
> []
>> I use my real name, not that it clearly identifies me. Do you know how
>> many Christopher J Campbells there are in the world? Heck, there was
>> even another flight instructor in the local area who had the same name
>> as me. There are Chris Campbells in the NFL, on wanted posters,
>> running photography studios, and everything else.
> []
>
> I bet there are more "David Taylor"s, Chris (or do you prefer Christopher).
> A magician of the same name as mine lives in the next street.
>
> David

Either "Chris" or "Christopher" will do, though "Christopher" sounds
more artsy to me when talking about photography. :D

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 11:04 am
From: Chris H

In message <go16i9$fq1$1@news.motzarella.org>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
>> In message news:gnvaf4$l8k$1@news.motzarella.org, John McWilliams
>><jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few
>>>years?
>> What proof do you have that anyone uses their real name?
>
>There's only one of which I am 100% positive.

Then that's two of us.

>The point isn't so much real name, but one consistent handle throughout
>the years. Although if folks had to post with their real name, there'd
>be fewer cowards mucking up the works.

Quite so. I not that it tends to be the Real-Men tm or the Real-Pros tm
or the Real-Photographers tm who have the fake ID's The ones that are
RIGHT and KNOW everything You see them all over the 'net.

The usual excuse is they don't want to get spam... well after 19 years
on News Groups and the Internet in general with a real email address I
can tell you that that excuse don't wash.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SD to CF adapters in 10D?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d19669c0e16390b0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 8:53 am
From: Clair Johnston

Ralph D. wrote:
> Well, it seems the discussion has run it's course on this, so... Thanks for
> the input, everyone.
>
> We have a few times a year when we run through 6 or 9 cards over a trip and
> it just seems a waste to buy that many new cards when he has so many SD,
> maybe a dozen even.
>
> Problem now is... I know I have seen these but I looked all over Newegg and
> Tiger and so forth and don't see them anywhere. I'll keep looking and have
> him use the CF1G he has for one day/location shooting and maybe use the
> adapter for more.
>
> Thanks again to all.
>
>
>
>
>
> "hardtstein" <chrishardt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:0http4tudrmlvqd30547jc0kno7kk79eb9@4ax.com...
>> Make sure the adapters say SDHC . If not, they will not work with the
>> larger capacity SD cards, 2gb. and up.
>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>> Ralph D. wrote:
>>>>> Hello again,
>>>>>
>>>>> My son has been given a Canon EOS 10D by someone who has upgraded. He
>>>>> has gone from P&S film to Fuji 3800 to Canon S3IS, but did not have
>>>>> the Canon long. So... we may have a few questions in the near future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's first one is:
>>>>>
>>>>> He has a boatload of 1G SD cards that he got for the S3IS. The 10D
>>>>> uses CF. I see there are adapters to use SD in a CF slot... are they
>>>>> undesirable for any reason? He's a 15yr old kid but he works hard for
>>>>> his money and would like to continue using what he has spent his cash
>>>>> on (he has a good attitude towards thrift that many kids do not). If
>>>>> he can use these without too much ill-effect I'd like to point him
>>>>> toward one.
>>>> Ray has the correct answer.
>>>>
>>> Correct for who John?
>>>
>>> I use 2, s5 Pro Fujifilm cameras that use CF cards but mainly run Nikon
>>> DSLRs that take SD cards. To save crap that goes with needing two types
>>> of cards, I bought adaptors at $30 each off Ebay. Film count on both s5
>>> cameras is over 10k each and not a single failure.
>>>
>>> I have even used the Sandisk card adaptors to convert my phone memory to
>>> SD and then put that in the CFC adaptor and shot 2 gig of images when I
>>> over shot my quota of SD cards for a day.
>>>
>>> Unless you've got some specific instances to quote of these adaptors
>>> failing or you have personal experience using them... Any information
>>> you offer is pure speculation and gossip.
>>>
>>> D-Mac.info
>
>
Here are two,
http://www.adorama.com/Search-Results.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=sd%20cf%20adapter
I am using the JOBO in a D300 with no problems. Allows me to carry one
card type for our various cameras, phones, gps, etc

Clair

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ritz Camera Chapter 11
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/999a0cc15091b7fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 10:44 am
From: glen_zabriskie@comcast.net (GMAN)

In article <49a3e9e2$0$5075$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>, "bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote:
>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:qc46q41sn4jnksmnf5gn7ruiljpkotb6ba@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:05:47 GMT, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <EGCol.11185$hc1.6424@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>, Paul Furman
>>><paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Ritz Camera Centers Files for Bankruptcy Protection (Update2)
>>>>
>>>>I just checked one particular lens & it was not priced competitively...
>>>>normally they do have good pricing on newly released mail order gear.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As it turned out, I was camcorder shopping about 5 years ago and Ritz had
>>>the cheapest
>>>price of anyone. As it turned out I got a good camera before they started
>>>to make
>>>them too small. great audio too.
>>>
>>>I shopped Ritz as a beginning photographer around 1974. Great deals on old
>>>paper.
>>>I also remember going in the main store/office near DC around 1974.
>>>
>>>After they messed up some test shots for my brothers wedding out of my
>>>camera, I took
>>>the film somewhere else. At a time, their big prints were pretty hot.
>>>
>>>Recently I bought a Fujifilm FinePix S2000HD at Best Buy at Christmas for
>>>$233
>>>and Circuit City has them now for $195, great buy. 30% off list. Circuit
>>>City had
>>>high prices kinda like Ritz.
>>>
>>>Ritz wanted about $300 at Christmas.
>>>
>>
>> The Circuit City in this area is closing, and all merchandise is
>> marked down to at least 30% off. At 30% off, they are still not
>> competitive. When you add in the 7% sales tax in the area, they are
>> even less competitive.
>
>Just saw a news story (Boston area) about a woman who bought a flat screen
>TV, paid over a grand, and when she unpacked it, it was smashed. The screen
>was literally cracked and broken. It's worthless. No warranty coverabe, and
>CC says all sales are final and won't take it back. If you buy anything from
>CC, plug it in before you leave the store.
>
She could just chargeback her credit card purchase.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Concrete of war
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a0d5ae512bf867f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 24 2009 11:14 am
From: "Pete D"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o877q4psn8mjo2ibala86krp1vnk5h4rnj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:47:09 +1100, "PeteD" <no@email.dude.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:pqi5q4p1925ngfepultuqbaa0jronuaa68@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:41:56 -0800 (PST), Silverdolphin
>>> <iannik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bunkers at present day, those defensive pillbox were built to encumber
>>>>Allied forces advancing in Italy during World War 2. Their careless
>>>>presence is an attestation which reminds us of the horrors of war in
>>>>the indifference of every way life.
>>>>
>>>>Comments and suggestions will be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>G
>>>>
>>>>http://www.giuliobrantl.com/concrete.htm
>>>
>>> Unless there's a way I missed to enlarge these on the screen, the page
>>> is a disappointment. They could be interesting shots. I can't tell
>>> from what I saw.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you need new glasses, for what they were showing they seemed
>>perfectly fine to me.
>>
> Go to the one with "BUS" painted on the road. Can you make out any
> detail of the bunker? The third image with the graffiti? The first
> image? The second?
>
> He's got some nice stuff here. In the 9th image, if the text didn't
> tell you that the images contain bunkers, would you know? I know the
> images aren't supposed to be an illustration of how to design a
> bunker, but you ought to be able to at least determine what the
> subject of the shot looks like. At about 2X, the images would be
> good.
>

I guess you are looking for something different from me, I was not looking
for absolute detail but an overall feel, I thought he did that well.

Cheers.

Pete

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic